Federal Judges Say Mandatory Minimums on Crack and Pot are Too Harsh

By Jeralyn, Section Crime Policy
Posted on Wed Jun 16, 2010 at 08:37:40 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

The U.S. Sentencing Commission has published the results of a survey of more than 600 federal judges on sentencing laws.

Marcia Coyle at the National Law Journal reports on the findings.

The 639 judges who responded had sentenced 116,183 offenders, or 79 percent of those sentenced during fiscal 2008 and 2009.

Sixty-two percent of the judges said the mandatory minimums that they were required to impose were too high, particularly for crack cocaine (76 percent), receipt of child pornography (71 percent) and marijuana (54 percent). However, strong majorities believed the sentencing guideline ranges for most federal offenses were appropriate, with the exception again of those for crack cocaine, marijuana, and the possession and receipt of child pornography, which they said were too high.

Also, 75 percent of the judges preferred the current system of advisory sentencing guidelines over mandatory ones. And 68 percent said "victims should not have the opportunity to comment on the pre-sentence report before sentencing." I agree.

< Wednesday Night Open Thread | World Cup >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Federal Judges Say Mandatory Minimums on Crack and Pot are Too Harsh | 22 comments (22 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

A case where it's a good thing... (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by kdog on Thu Jun 17, 2010 at 08:51:44 AM EST

federal judges are appointed and not elected...no judge could ever say child pron & crack minimums are too harsh without a Fox News hit squad ruining any election chances for dogcatcher...never mind judge.

They have the liberty to be honest.

No rational basis for ANY minimum sentence... (none / 0) (#1)
by Yes2Truth on Wed Jun 16, 2010 at 09:30:05 PM EST

because there's no rational basis for any drug
laws, unless it's for the only one with a strong
potential for its users to commit crimes, and that
would be the most used drug of all: Al K. Hall.

There is in fact a rational basis (none / 0) (#21)
by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Jun 17, 2010 at 12:05:38 PM EST

When people's law makers have good reason to believe (as this poll indicates) that judges will tend to ignore guidelines, then mandatory sentences make perfect sense.


: mandatory minimums came in (none / 0) (#22)
by Jeralyn on Thu Jun 17, 2010 at 12:14:02 PM EST

in 1986 for drug offenses. The guidelines came in 1987 and were mandatory until a few years ago.
A bill was introduced in 2009 to abolish them. Read the findings section. It includes:

(1) Since the enactment of mandatory minimum sentencing for drug users, the Federal Bureau of Prisons budget increased from $220 million in 1986 to $5.4 billion in 2008.
....(9) Low-level and mid-level drug offenders can be adequately prosecuted by the States and punished or supervised in treatment as appropriate.
....(14) One consequence of the improper focus of Federal cocaine prosecutions has been that the overwhelming majority of low-level offenders subject to the heightened crack cocaine penalties are black and according to the Report to Congress only 8.8 percent of Federal crack cocaine convictions were imposed on whites, while 81.8 percent and 8.4 percent were imposed on blacks and Hispanics, respectively
....(16) African Americans comprise 12 percent of the US population and 14 percent of drug users, but 30 percent of all Federal drug convictions.
....(18) According to the Justice Department, the time spent in prison does not affect recidivism rates.

2 points (none / 0) (#2)
by nyjets on Wed Jun 16, 2010 at 10:00:56 PM EST

The problem with only advisory sentencing guidelines is that there is to much variability in punishment. For most crimes, there should be an absolute minimum punishments.
Victims should have the right to comment on the pre-sentence report before sentencing. They have the right to put a human face to crime.

Now that being said, lowering, or nullify, criminal penalties for 'non-violent' drug crimes is most likely a good idea.

No, viictims only have the right (5.00 / 1) (#3)
by Jeralyn on Wed Jun 16, 2010 at 11:44:12 PM EST

to be heard at sentencing. They do not have a right to see the pre-sentence report before sentencing -- only the Judge, the DA, probation and the defendant see it -- that's the way it's always been and must remain.

The minimum for all crimes should be no jail time, a fine or probation. No crime should have a mandatory jail sentence. Sentencing must be individualized. One size fits all justice is no justice at all.


Fair enough on the first point (none / 0) (#6)
by nyjets on Thu Jun 17, 2010 at 07:24:10 AM EST

With respect to pre-sentenceing reports, fair enough, I misunderstood what was written.
As far as minimum sentences, for some crimes, "no jail time, a fine or probation " is insufficient in all cases.
For examples, most violent offenses should carry minimum jail time. Murders (and I am talking about murder in 1st or 2nd degree)should never get off with no jail time.
Therefore, some crimes should carry a minimum sentence. OW, there is just to much variablity and to great a chance for person to get away with a slap on the wrist.


: Crime laws keep the funds flowing for so many (none / 0) (#7)
by Yes2Truth on Thu Jun 17, 2010 at 08:25:21 AM EST

Too many people will be liberal with sentencing
guidelines...just keep things illegal. THE System
needs crimes. Too many people are dependent on
the benefits. Not only those charged.

It seems to me victim of violent (none / 0) (#4)
by oculus on Wed Jun 16, 2010 at 11:56:37 PM EST

crime should be allowed not only to submit a statement for probation report but also to speak at sentencing hearing. Of course, the judge should not be obligated to heed the wishes of the victim.

the victim can write a letter to the judge (none / 0) (#5)
by Jeralyn on Thu Jun 17, 2010 at 12:41:54 AM EST

directly. Or send a letter to the probation officer for inclusion with the report, but like every other letter writer, has no right to see the report itself.


: sorry. my comment was meant in response to the... (none / 0) (#10)
by Yes2Truth on Thu Jun 17, 2010 at 09:48:10 AM EST

comment below...about victims SPEAKING at
sentencing.

Why do you feel that way? (none / 0) (#9)
by Yes2Truth on Thu Jun 17, 2010 at 09:46:09 AM EST

Is it that victims should be allowed to engage in
a form of sentencing nullification, in hopes the
court will impose greater punishment?

Should the D be allowed to make a statement about
the victim and his/her desire for vindictiveness?


Well (none / 0) (#11)
by jbindc on Thu Jun 17, 2010 at 10:53:41 AM EST

Should the D be allowed to make a statement about the victim and his/her desire for vindictiveness?

Did the defendant already "make a statement" about the victim when he/she victimized them?


Are violent offenders (none / 0) (#14)
by jondee on Thu Jun 17, 2010 at 11:15:39 AM EST

such notoriously persuasive advocates for the rights of violent offenders that they require direct refuting testimony from the victims; in the spirit of an-eye-for-an-eye and, he-had-his-say-now-I'll-have-mine?


The question was (none / 0) (#16)
by jbindc on Thu Jun 17, 2010 at 11:17:48 AM EST

Shouldn't the defendant be allowed to make a statement about the victim? My point was the defendant already made a statement about the victim - through his/her actions, through his/her counsel at trial, and presumably, through his/her counsel at the sentencing hearing.


Actually, what you said was: (none / 0) (#17)
by jondee on Thu Jun 17, 2010 at 11:29:57 AM EST

that the defendant "Made a statement when he victimized them"; you didn't say anything about people making statements through their counsel at trial trial, or through their counsel at the sentencing hearing.


: You're rightI did (none / 0) (#18)
by jbindc on Thu Jun 17, 2010 at 11:58:24 AM EST

I didn't add that.
But my statement was correct - the defendant still made his/her statement when he committed his/her crime.

all defendants have the right to (none / 0) (#19)
by Jeralyn on Thu Jun 17, 2010 at 12:02:24 PM EST

speak at their own sentencing. It's called the right of allocution. The defendant can say whatever he or she wants. Most defendants wouldn't trash the victim for fear of getting more time. Why raise issues here that don't apply? The post is about what federal judges told the sentencing commission about access to probation reports. Stop stirring a make-believe pot.


Because a good, thorough defense (none / 0) (#13)
by oculus on Thu Jun 17, 2010 at 11:12:28 AM EST

attorney will try to influence the probation officer to recommend a lesser sentence based on the defendant's childhood and present circumstances. Examples: abuse, molestation, must keep job to support family, is very remorseful, willing to enter drug rehab now, etc.

Persons whose lives are severely effected by the criminal conduct of the defendant should have a chance to describe that effect.


But (none / 0) (#12)
by jbindc on Thu Jun 17, 2010 at 11:10:16 AM EST

And 68 percent said "victims should not have the opportunity to comment on the pre-sentence report before sentencing."

It also says that 54% said "Presentence reports should be required to include information a victim wishes to be in the report."

AND

66% strongly agree or agree that, "Courts should have the authority to order restitution to victims in all cases."

46% strongly agree or agree (20% are neutral) that "Congress should amend the restitution statutes to more broadly define the term "victim" to include persons who suffer any harm, injury, or loss that would have not occurred but for the defendant's crime."
====

Also, your statistic about "54% of judges think mandatory minimums for marijuana is too high" is completely incorrect. (See "Table 8. Is the guideline range generally appropriate for each following type of offense?" ) 54% said yes - the guideline range for marijuana offenses is generally appropriate - meaning they think it's right on.

: And (none / 0) (#15)
by jbindc on Thu Jun 17, 2010 at 11:15:51 AM EST

5% the guidelines for marijuana is too low. Only 41% think the guidelines are too high. (pardon the pun).

: wrong again (none / 0) (#20)
by Jeralyn on Thu Jun 17, 2010 at 12:04:32 PM EST

you are confusing guidelines with mandatory minimums. They are not the same.

Sixty-two percent of the judges said the mandatory minimums that they were required to impose were too high, particularly for crack cocaine (76 percent), receipt of child pornography (71 percent) and marijuana (54 percent).